[capitan_refugio]

"If you look at HR 591, as recorded on Dec 9, 1862, the working title was "An Act to indemnify the President and other Persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus and acts done in pursuance thereof." It also came with a preamble which explained the reasons for the proposed Act ..."

You might recall that I posted that, and the text of the proposed preamble, on the late, great deleted thread. I also noted, at that time, that the December draft had two sections. The first section dealt with "indemnification," and the second section dealt with authorization. By the time the Act reached its final form, it had been significantly changed, the term "indemnification" had been dropped completely, and addition sections added. The first section of the Act in final form dealt with the authorization by Congress for Lincoln to suspend the writ during the "present insurrection."

You misconstrue the purpose of the proposed and final "indemnification" clauses. They were "forward-looking" in that the proposed to shut down the inevitable post-war southern shysters. Your conclusion ("Had the unconstitutional suspensions been ratified, there would be no cause of action.") does not follow from the historical facts.

[nolu chan]

[CR] "If you look at HR 591, as recorded on Dec 9, 1862, ...

Blather. It was the Act of March 3, 1863. I quoted and gave you a picture of the Congressional Record of March 2, 1863.

Here is it again, on March 2, 1863 undergoing final passage.

[cr] Your conclusion ("Had the unconstitutional suspensions been ratified, there would be no cause of action.") does not follow from the historical facts.

One does not get indemnified for something that is lawful. Your blather is irrelevant to legal fact.